The Philosophy of Logical Analysis

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 20 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 40

  • @Basurumu
    @Basurumu 12 років тому +4

    Thanks for uploading this book! Sterling job, sir!

  • @Yatukih_001
    @Yatukih_001 9 років тому +1

    Working lass thanks for uploading the video.

  • @TsarOfRuss
    @TsarOfRuss 9 років тому +3

    Wow !!! THE END ??????? WOW .. THANKS SO SO MUCH

  • @Yatukih_001
    @Yatukih_001 9 років тому +9

    The person disliking this video is scaring me.

  • @tedgrant2
    @tedgrant2 4 роки тому +1

    I studied Philosophy in order to answer a difficult question.
    Does God exist or to put it correctly, does the creator of the world exist ?
    There are embedded in the question, at least two unwarranted assumptions.
    If these are removed, the question can only be properly answered by scientists.

    • @jschuler53
      @jschuler53 2 роки тому

      tedgrant2. 1. we are not certain the world exists let alone 2) there was a singular creator/that it was created at all v evolving and that doesn't necessitate total Darwinism. Did I get the two assumptions? This is also a question I love to ponder and never forgot some of the arguments for/against, etc. I like you question the question. The unwarranted assumptions. Thanks. Get back to me on this. And to go back to Descartes, are we sure we exist? If we're thinking about this, does only that make it so?

    • @tedgrant2
      @tedgrant2 2 роки тому

      @@jschuler53
      I asked the question a year ago. I can't remember what I was thinking at the time.
      I am very sure the world exists, so I don't think that was one of my assumptions.
      I guess one assumption is that the world had a beginning.
      Another is that a person manufactured it.

  • @arcas17
    @arcas17 12 років тому

    Thank you for the U/Ls.

  • @banjogyro
    @banjogyro Рік тому

    Overall a good book

  • @drbonesshow1
    @drbonesshow1 2 роки тому

    Plato and his dog Pluto.

  • @TheClownofhearts
    @TheClownofhearts 12 років тому +1

    wow thank you workingklass

  • @rgaleny
    @rgaleny 11 років тому +5

    Process replaces substance. Mathematics is linguistic.

    • @wbiro
      @wbiro 10 років тому

      ...and glib statements are happily vague... so let me do the heavy mental lifting: Dynamics are more important than statics (or at least build on it), and someday everyone will understand the higher math necessary to intuit dynamics, and from there, our species might springboard further into our Brain Age (from the unenlightened primitive state we are still in), and maybe make it to evolution's ultimate end (this 'evolution' including social and societal evolution - critical to such success) - an Ultimate Being that can withstand anything the universe can throw at it, thereby guaranteeing the perpetuation of life (a worthy goal, and goals defining good and evil, and good and evil being the basis for formulating laws and structuring society), and from there overcoming death and ignorance, but probably not - due to our being the first earth species to enter its Brain Age (given the archaeological evidence), and first tries at anything usually fail (statistically speaking), meaning it will most likely be up to other species to become enlightened and try for Ultimate Being status (I'll put my money on the wasp), provided they beat the burn-out of our sun, which means we should leave behind all that we've learned in an easy-to-understand medium so that the next species can get a boost, since the time frame for life on earth will be running out... and if life on earth fails, there will no doubt be other worlds in space and time that harbor life, (since this universe is friendly to life) which may enter their Brain Ages and have a chance of becoming enlightened and succeeding...
      and in the end, perhaps an answer to the ultimate philosophical question can be found (or adequately formulated), i.e. "Why bother?"

    • @rgaleny
      @rgaleny 10 років тому +1

      Mine is not a Glib Statement. The idea that all is Substance is replaced in Process Philosophy with "Process" an atom is a moving set of fields in Precess. That's all. Mathmatics is Linguistic is an observation from Godel.

    • @wbiro
      @wbiro 10 років тому

      Robert Galletta
      Interesting physics-based frame of mind to have on 'substance', but this 'movement' assumes the atoms are disturbed (otherwise they are at rest). The question is what can we do with such frames of mind (and I have the answer, because I do not just spout glib statements without further thought and explanations).

    • @rgaleny
      @rgaleny 10 років тому

      Good to know !

    • @wbiro
      @wbiro 10 років тому

      wbiro I must apologize for my anger (even though I am justified! let me explain in a general way)...

  • @pocketfullofshellz
    @pocketfullofshellz 6 років тому

    Workingklass or James Frisbie, that is the question!

  • @hyperduality2838
    @hyperduality2838 4 роки тому +1

    y = x.
    y is equal to x, y is similar, equivalent or dual to x.
    y is the same as x but different, same is dual to different.
    You are the same person now but different compared to a minute ago -- personnel identity is dual.
    Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).

    • @lorenzodavidsartormaurino413
      @lorenzodavidsartormaurino413 3 роки тому

      I havent understood not even One of these comments scattered along the audiobook.

    • @hyperduality2838
      @hyperduality2838 3 роки тому

      @@lorenzodavidsartormaurino413 Noumenal (analytic, rational) is dual to phenomenal (synthetic, empirical) -- Immanuel Kant.
      Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
      The intellectual mind/soul (concepts) is dual to the sensory mind/soul (percepts) -- the mind duality of Thomas Aquinas.
      The mind or soul is dual according Kant & Aquinas!
      Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
      Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato.
      Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
      There is a pattern of duality within philosophical thought.

  • @georgeantonakis4151
    @georgeantonakis4151 Рік тому

    'Mathematical knowledge is neither inductive-empirical nor a priori, it's just verbal knowledge', says Russel, only to be fundamentally disputed a few years later, when Chomsky proved that verbal capacity, our Universal Grammar, is inherent to us, a biological given, thus it is a priori knowledge.

  • @jacobmiears6497
    @jacobmiears6497 9 років тому +2

    Well.... Now I see from where some of the ridiculous misinformed interpretations of Nietzsche, Bergson, and James are being derived. Hilarious Berty. You say philosophy isn't philosophy unless it's strictly logical. The first thing we have to acknowledge as philosophical truth is that we exist and things outside us exist. How do we know? We don't, we cannot know right now and we may never be able to answer that question but we will damn sure try. No, you see, all we can do is assume that existence exists and that faith is the first step to our knowledge because it is the basis of all our knowledge including our logic. That is to say most clearly nothing precedes existence. You fail to see that philosophy is not solely Logical Analysis. You would have reduce philosophy to only topics subject to logical induction or deduction. But it is so much more than just that although that is very important. Philosophy is a practice composed from the contemplation of our experiences and anticipations i.e. a mixture of our instinct, intellect, and intuition exactly like Bergson stated and you rejected because you found it paradoxical lol. Dude, so is time. The present moment as we conceive it is at one in the same time a moment of arrival from the past and departure into the future. Therefore the present is simultaneously two contradictory verbs. Hmm.. this means time is paradoxical. That doesn't mean we discard it all together. Why? Because it is useful, and helpful to us and our condition. You see, what this means is there is a naturally occurring dissonance between our intellect and our intuition. We recognize something like time exists but as soon as we try to verbalize it we reduce it to something that it isn't and then we can only hope the other person knows what we MEAN not we SAY. Obviously this has to mean that the tool of language is at fault here not the individuals perceptions or ideas about them. So we cannot just discard anything paradoxical because it is paradoxical otherwise we shit all over ours and everyone else's experience. The greatest philosophers in history understood the truth of our predicament (the human condition) and didn't try to go farther than possible or give up on the seemingly impossible. Instead, they courageously asked the most difficult questions and accepted the answers they found and tried like hell to convey them. Sadly apparently just so assholes like you could distort and refute them by putting their words into absurd contexts and not allowing them any say so in the argument and therefore marginalizing them. They didn't wish the answers to be different or flat out deny them. Many philosophers made false ascents to truth based on faulty metaphysics but some didn't and you're a goddamn fool not to see that, and then to give such hasty misrepresentations in order to negate facts about the human condition in order to perpetuate the hope that your delusion will one day be realized and we'll be able to logically define number, space/time, mind, and matter without experience is an insult to your own and our intelligence. Your greatest fallacy was to appeal to an absolute. Your absolute was logical analysis. The creative spirit is not absolute or logical and neither is our wisdom and those are our only guides which if defined as a thing is just an amalgamation of the totality of our immediate experience into a single imagined entity we call ourselves/universe/god/reality/nature/process/philosophy/vision whatever. The real "dirty work" to be done now is to further develop language and syntax so that we can more adequately express the ideas that we ALL experience similarly together, but for whatever multiplicity of reasons cannot agree. The modern day false ascent to knowledge is to reject all illogical but consistent philosophy or logical but inconsistent philosophy in the hopes of finding some wholly logical and wholly consistent philosophy that defines everything for us like mathematics helps us define spacial and temporal reality. If Hume and Kant showed us anything it is that we must seek a middle ground between these two fundamental ways of human experience that come to be know as empiricism and rationalism. This entire book is despicable as an interpretative guide to western philosophy which by its content clearly makes claims towards. However, its great for historical and logical development along dialectic stream of philosophical thought. Truly, many great ideas and insights into logic and history, but some piss poor interpretations of some of the greatest artistic, political, ethical, metaphysical, and epistemological philosophers of all time. I was sad to recognize so many of the bogus bullshit interpretations surrounding some of these thinkers. Clear evidence of how NOT to interpret philosophy, but this is what happens when we act like robots, and try to act like emotion, and time are not key factors to the inherent uncertainty of humanness. If only you were still alive maybe I could speak to you maybe I could persuade you into believing the most important fact we could ever know without logic, but could only ever express with it. We exist.

    • @mpcc2022
      @mpcc2022 8 років тому

      Even if I don't entirely agree with all your claims; I greatly admire your judgement and position.

    • @dieweltweltetshankardeepu2734
      @dieweltweltetshankardeepu2734 7 років тому +5

      jacob miears my beloved comrade beware of civility when commenting about a man who lived 7 decades writing books, criticizing and studying. You're another spoke in the wheel demanding the exploration of the unexplorable. The point is quiet clear that unless the views of morality or the absolute God or any other thing which seems to exists around, can gain universality only and only by the means of empiricism or by mathematics. Until then don't just talk thrash and think twice before commenting on those who are wiser and acknowledged than you unless you are damn sure you can take them over which you didn't by your nonsensical incoherent prone affinities as if you studied all available sciences in the world. Even Russell didn't but I'm sure he's ahead of you. Silence is a good weapon. If Russell was alive and if you put this question he'll dismantle you. You're simply fortunate that he isn't

    • @endless_search
      @endless_search 6 років тому +3

      As I always say, the first couple of sentences of a person's comments says all you need to know. Does Bertrand Russell endanger who you think you are? Your existence? Are your emotions getting in the way? Survival of the ego.

    • @sirtheodorefranciswindsor
      @sirtheodorefranciswindsor 3 роки тому +1

      Well...anyways... Save 15% or more on Car Insurance with Geico!